Common sense in rapier cutting

[John_Clements]

I was noticing a website where it was claimed about the rapier that they all had “a fine edge“ and “could produce very formidable cuts.” After noting edge techniques are of course included in rapier treatises, it implied that such “potentially debilitating” cuts only needs to “employ proper technique.”

I think the writer must have seen too many movies.

As a martial-artist swordsman of 26 years and having handled over a hundred antique rapiers, practiced with several and test-cut with some (as well as having test-cut with dozens of different swords of all eras and cultures, both reproductions and antiques), and having amassed a collection of over 100 pages of documented evidence of injuries in historical sword combats, I then have to shake my head at how to address such misstatements.

There are only so many ways one can ask for qualification of such ambiguous statements as “fine edges”, or request physical performance be demonstrated of “formidable cuts” using such slender blades with such shallow bevels, or inquire as to the noticeable lack comment within the rapier manuals that such “painful” cuts are in fact “debilitating” (let alone lethal), or call for historical evidence to be offered of rapier combat accounts that reveal its cutting strikes actually being “formidable.”

I suppose “potentially debilitating” applies to slashing or sawing with most anything, from a car antenna to a butter knife. I certainly lack no “proper technique” when it comes to cutting and I have demonstrated in public with antique rapiers and replica rapiers cutting blows of all manner against raw meat and cloth targets. I have inspected countless antique rapier blades and consulted numerous curators, collectors, and swordsmiths as to the physical geometry of their edges, always noting their cutting capacity. These things, as historical sources in fact tell us, do not produce “very formidable cuts”, regardless of technique.

It really doesn't matter who makes such claims, since I can understand misinterpretation of historical sources when a student lacks information and experience. But what I can’t understand is casual and intentional disregard of information, of physical evidence, of modern experiment, and of sources from the era itself ---sources which explicitly complain rapiers do not cut well (e.g., Silver and Smythe)? Even then, still arguing that rapiers cut well despite all this begs the question as to why wider cutting blades continued to be designed and used at all, let alone why 18th century smallswords (which have no edges) continued to include in their teachings the very same standard edge strikes that rapier texts once did.

Cuts that are neither incapacitating nor lethal (especially those by a blade not designed for edge blows) are obviously employed to distract, harass and provoke so that a more effective follow-on thrust can then be made.

It still amazes me we get unsupported hyperbole like this offered by people without such experience as noted above who are themselves neither especially experienced martial artists or notably well-trained fencers. All I can say to students of the subject is use common sense and avoid ambiguous statements and hyperbole.

JC

[M Wallgren]

What was the name of the website? Would be interesting to read what they have to say so one could think up effectivly arguments againt it. I often find myself in discussions with museum-people and such who are quite disinforemed on the use of the weapons yhey have in their care.

[JeanryChandler]

John,

As you know historically the term rapier has been used to refer a rather broad category of weapons, sometimes even those broader-bladed cut-and-thrust swords which modern spathologists also tend to refer to as 'sideswords' or 'espada ropera'. Maybe the author of article you refer to was referring to weapons of this type?



Jeanry

[Allen Johnson]

I'd agree but thats still the ignorace of the original writer as reffering to them as 'rapiers'. I remember I visited a local SCA group just to see some old aquintences and spar a bit with rapier. I mentioned to one of them that I had been doing a bit of reading in Silver - he then proceeded to say he uses Silver all the time. Executing the cuts and thrusts with his whippy schlager. Obviously they would have been completley ineffective with that kind of 'weapon'. (assuming it was real and made propperly).

[Tom Leoni]

John,

I know how you feel about the rapier and cutting. We have had that discussion before, and I saw that it was a hot-button for you, for some reason. But we can have a divergence of opinions without your resorting to claiming that "too many movies" lead me to say what I said on my website. My opinion arises SOLELY from a meticulous and decade-long analysis of period Italian texts and from my owning and testing of originals.

By the way, the author of the article was yours truly and my website is www.salvatorfabris.com.

You have had your experience and it has lead you to the conclusion that a rapier cannot cut any better than a car-antenna. I and others have had mine, and my conclusion was different from yours. You also cite Silver and Smythe, with whom I am both familiar. I can cite a good amount of Italian treatises who lead me to the opposite conclusion.

I respect the fact that you have seen and examined countless originals. I have had my share of examining as well - and I also own two original rapiers (one from about 1590, the other from circa 1620), which I can use to my heart's content - and I assure you that a cut with any of them, properly delivered, will bite into flesh in a considerable way, in spite of their having not been sharpened in 400 odd years. One of the two has a blade that starts 1 1/4" wide at the ricasso, and does not taper until roughly three inches from the point. A strong and properly-delivered cut to the head with such blade would stop a fight or considerably slow you down unless you are Superman. Think about it: 20" of blade slicing through your head or limbs in a fraction of a second, PLUS a strong, percussive element (good cuts are delivered with the whole body, not just the arm.)

It is PRECISELY because with the right technique you can cut even with a car-antenna that the same right technique would make a 40"-bladed, double-edged sword produce a noticeable wound. Furthermore, a "rapier" is quite variable in blade-width, weight and length, so you can see that absolute statements to the incapability of a "rapier" to cut are not necessarily Gospel.

Now, if to that you add that the greatest majority of rapier cuts (as described by the likes of Fabris, Alfieri, Capoferro and others) are aimed at the head, temples and limbs, you can see that a strong, properly-delivered cut with such a sword would not be merely received as a "harrassment cut." And that was the point in my article, and I stand by it.

By the way - Fabris, Alfieri, Capoferro and many other Italian masters talk about the cut and identify its drawbacks specifically as tactical - most cuts requires two tempi, and can therefore be easily defeated by a thrust. In fairness, they also add that the thrust is "more lethal." But notice that they never say "a cut will never produce more than a superficial and negligible wound." In other words - would an Italian rapier of the time of Fabris remove a limb? Certainly not. Would it create a would that will slow you down and weaken you (= debilitate you)? Yes, if properly delivered.

Fabris goes as far as saying that were you to wrap a cloak entirely around your arm, you should still never use it to oppose a cut, for the opponent's sword could still cut through the cloak and produce a wound. His words, not mine (Book 1, part III "General principles of sword and cloak").

Alfieri (1640) uses cuts as alternative strikes to virtually 90% of his actions, as described in the plates. Capoferro (1610) is also quite generous in his use of cuts. Now, I may be saying this on faith, but I don't think that three masters of their caliber would deliberately mislead their readers into learning techniques that are all but ineffective.

Now - I am not discounting your experience, although I disagree with your conclusions. But as you can see, mine are not derived from watching movies.

By the way, if anyone is interested in seeing how one of my original rapiers can cut, you can come and visit us and see for yourselves. We are in Northern Virginia. Our general web address is www.mashs.org, and we are there usually on Sundays. Email me in advance so that we can bring material for the test. I can also show you what a mildly sharpened replica can do. This is not one of my pet causes, but I still believe what I believe and I'm glad to show how I arrived to such conclusions.

Anyway, I know that I am as welcome here as the devil in a nunnery - but I felt that if a statement was made not merely disagreeing with my reserch (which is fine) but suggesting that I get my facts from films and that I go about deliberately misleading, I must refute it.

Respectfully,

Tom Leoni

[Tom Leoni]

Allen,

Before you call a writer "ignorant" you should make sure you know him, have read the article and can cite good reasons why you think he is. Otherwise, the charge falls back on you.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Tom,

You wrote: "One of the two has a blade that starts 1 1/4" wide at the ricasso, and does not taper until roughly three inches from the point."

With a blade that wide, I'd have to call that a cut and thrust sword since it was made to cut and thrust.

Most rapiers that I would call a rapier are in the ball park of 1/2 an inch at the ricasso. A blade as wide as you say is designed to cut. If it is designed to cut effectively I'd say it moves the "cut and thrust" category.

Tim Sheetz

[M Wallgren]

I´m looking for a cut´n thrust sword like the one you describe. Where do I get hold of one??

[John_Clements]

I’ve written so much substantial material on this topic already that has been ignored by some, Jeanry. I think the late sword authority Ewart Oakeshott said it best when he differentiated between swords and rapiers by saying, if you know by hefting it can cleave off a man’s limbs with it, then it’s a sword, if not, it’s a rapier. The weapon discussed here is exactly not the earlier kind of side sword (pictured) but the true rapier, the slender kind as depicted in texts such as Fabris and Capo Ferro and sometimes referred to in Italian today as a “striscia.”

It’s unfortunate that we encounter arguments that striking with the “center of percussion” is ideal with a rapier, when in fact, this portion of a rapier blade is where it is not only the thinnest but where it’s cross-section invariably thickens to an oval shape—entirely unsuited to edge impact damage and where it will likely snap the easiest (as many surviving antique specimens indeed have). It’s common sense that if you have a slender blade optimally designed for quick thrusting unarmored attacks it cannot have an acute edge bevel and lacks the width and mass to produce "formidable" edge blows. For this very reason some rapiers were even specifically designed with the addition of a special “spatulated” cutting point” much flatter and wider than the rest of the blade (though this fact is ignored by the "fine edge rapiers can cut formidably" view).

Is it any wonder then that the rapier masters instructed to avoid cutting in favor of thrusts and do not indicate that rapier cuts are intended as killing blows, or that historical accounts of rapier fights consistently relate only minor edge wounds? There is a reason after all why Shakespeare referred to these things as “cat-scratchers.”

The same argument is heard over and over from the “a rapier makes a formidable cut” believers: “The manuals say to cut! The manuals say to cut!” But, such believers fail to differentiate between degrees of edge blow (let alone degrees of edged blade and of edge sharpness) and they cannot cite substantial examples of rapiers producing decisive cutting wounds in combats nor produce documented evidence that contradicts the criticism of rapiers as poor cutting weapons made by reputable swordsmen from the era itself. I really don’t know why they choose to overlook the obvious differences between edge blows made with cutting swords and those made with true rapiers as frequently demonstrated in modern experiments.

All this is why rather than baseless speculation and misinterpretation on rapier cuts, in ARMA we rely on historical evidence of sword injuries combined with modern experiments cutting on raw meat. Again, regardless of how some enthusiasts today want to play in their mock duels, we have to ignore the nonsense we see in movies where rapiers slash through belts and ropes, etc.

JC

See our article here for a detailed examination of what a rapier is and can do:
Q&A on Rapiers

[Tom Leoni]

Tim, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I strongly believe that a deeper delving into hopology will yield a lot of answers. Unfortunately, up to the recent past precious little research has been done in this regard - as you know, most curators only look at hilts, which is regrettable.

If nothing else, a broader and deeper knowledge of the physical weapons of the period will give us some kind of "lingua Franca" in which we can communicate without misunderstandings. For instance, a "rapier" can be described in countless ways - from the weapon used in the English translation of Di Grassi to the slim-bladed weapons you point out, to the wider-bladed swords I describe, and even to broader, cavalry-type "sword-rapiers." Ditto for "cut and thrust swords" - this too is a post-factum, relatively modern term. I can say with confidence that a similar term, in Italian, of course, does not appear on 16-17th C. Italian texts.

One of the further problems in this regard is that the Italians of the period never used the word Rapier. To them it was a sword, perhaps "the" sword, when we talk about 1575-1650. Still, what I own would undoubtedly be classified as rapiers (and are, even upon a superficial look) - as far as length, weight, flexibility, balance, hilt type, etc.

So, at what point does a cut and thrust sword stop being one and start being a rapier? At what point does a rapier stop being a rapier and become a cut and thrust sword? Is there a reasonable area of overlap? Is there such a thing as a thrust and cut sword, then? Are we trying to over-classify things? These are questions that may take years of research to answer.

Still, I am content to admit that there are rapiers that are not at all designed to cut - and I presume those to which Tim refers to would fall into this category. However, there are others that can and will cut while still maintaining the characteristics of what we understand as a rapier.

M. Wallgreen, I have had a good replica rapier with a rather hefty blade (1" at the ricasso) made by Arms and Armor of Minnesota. Check it out at http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item919.html. This is a replica of a rapier at the Stibbert museum in Florence, and (believe me), you don't want to be at the wrong end of a cut from this sword.

Tom

[Steven Reich]

Tim,

I am very familiar with the sword (i.e. his historic original) of which Tom spoke, having handled it many times. Given the length and balance, it is clearly a rapier. That is, it is a sword I would feel comfortable using for the predominantly thrusting style of Fabris, Giganti & Capoferro, but would prefer not use for the "Cut & Thrust" styles of Manciolino, Marozzo, et. al. The blade would definitely do damage with a cut if employed correctly (albeit, an amputation is very doubtful unless employed against a small extremity with a cut from the shoulder).

More specifically, it has an overall length about the same as a Darkwood made with a Del Tin rapier blade. It is definitely longer and balanced differently from "Cut & Thrust" swords typically (wrongly) identified as rapiers in the way the community uses the word (some examples of these would include the Arms and Armor Gustav Vasa rapier and the Arms and Armor Milanese rapier--both clearly Cut & Thrust swords).

Steve

[Shawn Cathcart]

This is boiling down to the old problem of different definitions of what a "Rapier" is, and the extent of the damage its cut could achieve. Obviously the latter hinges entirely on the former. While the strict definition of what each Master meant as a Rapier would be nice, as has been shown already its difficult to quantify. Rather look at the manuals themselves. Look at the illustrations.

A quick browse through even the manuals listed under the reading section of the ARMA page shows many illustrations of the blades from most of the manuals so far mentioned. They generally appear to be of two types. The thin slender blade that John refer's to, and a blade that while quite thick at the ricasso has a continuous taper towards a very thin point. Resulting in noticably less mass and width towards the last third of the blade, with which a cut would ideally be made.

Tom, on your website, under the article "What is a Rapier", you show an image of what you consider a Rapier to be. Unfortunately we can only see about half the length of the blade, but it does not appear to have a very sharp taper to it. It seems quite thick, and remains so at least half way up the blade. Looking at the illustrations from the manuals in question do you think the images really resemble the style of blade you depict in that image? Or would you agree they more often than not fall into the previous two categories I mentioned.

At most, just from observation most of the slender blades as depicted in say Capo Ferro appear to be not much wider than the width of a persons finger. In others depicting the tapering blade, even the ricasso would seem to be no wider than perhaps two finger widths. In other words, I can't think of many longsword blades that would be much over 2 inches in width of blade. You state in the article that during Fabris' age a Rapier blade would be anywhere from 1 to 1.5 inches at the Ricasso and then run to a fine point. I think this description fits the second category I listed above and would mean that there would indeed be very little mass on the last third of the blade. It also wouldn't seem to fit the description of the blade which you picture in that same article, as it does not seem to show any steady taper towards a fine point. Perhaps an image of the whole length of the blade would be helpful.

To me personally, a blade that has a width of 1 to 1.5 inches through the majority of the blade is no longer optimized for thrusting, but rather fits as a cut and thrust sword. It also wouldn't seem to fit the blades as depicted in many of the manuals themselves. To me, what matters is what is the blade width in the last third of the blade, that to me would more dictate the utility of a blade as it pertains to its cutting ability.

Strikes are obviously still a useful tactic with the more slender blades depicted, especially to the face, however they would all in my opinion be followed up immediately with a conclusive thrust. Strikes to the forearms and hands have always been iffy for me with these slender blades. Not so much as a question of how much damage they do, but merely because a solid strike (meaning a non-tip strike) made against the arms would also put one in range for a solid strike/thrust at the face which is a much better target.

[Casper Bradak]

Furthermore, a "rapier" is quite variable in blade-width, weight and length, so you can see that absolute statements to the incapability of a "rapier" to cut are not necessarily Gospel.

From this I gather that you obviously know that we're talking about slender true rapiers, not swords, and you're simply argueing that they can produce devastating cuts because you want to include a far broader range of swords in the "rapier" category. It's a matter of skewed definition and one argument doesn't shoot down another.

Now, if to that you add that the greatest majority of rapier cuts (as described by the likes of Fabris, Alfieri, Capoferro and others) are aimed at the head, temples and limbs, you can see that a strong, properly-delivered cut with such a sword would not be merely received as a "harrassment cut."

One of the major reasons they were aimed at those targets was to maximise the effect of a blade that could hardly cripple with an edge blow to a more substantial area, and produce the best harrassing effect. An edge blow with a rapier to the hand or elbow, for example, if lucky, might even make someone drop their weapon through pain and suprise, but more than likely hardly cripple them. The temple and face are of course excellent harrassment areas with a relatively insubstantial blade (but lethal ones with a sword). You'd hardly get the effect from smacking them in the doublet.
It's also plain to see that they hardly used powerful full arm cuts as you would with a sword. This, combined with the blades used, should make it obvious that power and crippling effect were not what they were trying to accomplish. It would be difficult to accomplish from the positions, guards and techniques described with even a true sword.
The realm of physical ability would have you demonstrating your crippling blows with your "rapier" using sword technique.

But notice that they never say "a cut will never produce more than a superficial and negligible wound."

Wrong tact. You can't say it happened because they didn't say it didn't happen. They don't say their oblique stop kicks to the shin would break their leg. You just have to use common sense with the given weapon.
They certainly don't show lethal or debilitating effects. Even Cap Ferro relies on a scything action to maximize the edge blow of his insubstantial blades, and then he makes no mention of them being more than harrassing motions, they aren't shown as more than superficial, and his duellists were naked!

Alfieri (1640) uses cuts as alternative strikes to virtually 90% of his actions, as described in the plates. Capoferro (1610) is also quite generous in his use of cuts. Now, I may be saying this on faith, but I don't think that three masters of their caliber would deliberately mislead their readers into learning techniques that are all but ineffective.

I wouldn't use generous to describe it, but you're absolutely right, they wouldn't mislead their students, you just have to see it from the right perspective. Even though the edge is far from the primary attack of a true rapier, it's still a viable option if you have the time and place, just don't expect to fell the enemy with it.
Capo Ferro, for example, gives it as an option if your thrust passes by. In that case, the cut is the only other viable attack, and hopefully it will buy you a little time.
What hasn't been mentioned, are the rapier masters that advise against the cut, not only because the rapier isn't well designed for them, but because the tip may in fact break on a slender true rapier leaving you at your enemie's mercy.

Also, I absolutely agree that your 1 1/4" bladed "rapier" absolutely sounds like a sword. The hilt, length, etc. matter not one bit, only the blade, and that is a sword blade. True rapiers would require, and sometimes had, spatulate points for tip scratches. If the whole blade can deliver that effect, that sir is a massive difference in the manner in which the weapon can be used, and any refusal to make the distinction between those two very different weapons is a big mistake and you have too much emotional investment in defending the undefendable.

[JeanryChandler]

One of the major reasons they were aimed at those targets was to maximise the effect of a blade that could hardly cripple with an edge blow to a more substantial area, and produce the best harrassing effect. An edge blow with a rapier to the hand or elbow, for example, if lucky, might even make someone drop their weapon through pain and suprise, but more than likely hardly cripple them. The temple and face are of course excellent harrassment areas with a relatively insubstantial blade (but lethal ones with a sword). You'd hardly get the effect from smacking them in the doublet.

This was my thought exactly. If I were fighting an opponent who had a rapier, and I myself had a cut-and-thrust sword like say, a Schiavona, my first tactic would be to cut their arm off at the forearm. Safest way to eliminate the threat.

In other words, If you have a real cutting sword, you dont have to aim at any specific area of the body. A cut to the foot or the belly or the hand is just as likely to end the fight as a cut to the face, because the damage will be catastrophic.

This whole issue of rapier terminology is something we have been discussing in our group lately, and I've been reading Normans "The Rapier and Small-Sword". The masters, the Italians in particular, tended to be vague about what kind of sword there were referring to. Same for other direct sources from the period.

I think this is because they assumed it was obvious what kind of sword they menat by the context, which is now largely lost to us. In modern terms, I could say I spread jelly my toast with a knife, I eat my steak with a knife, I applied putty to the hole in the sheetrock with a knife, and I carved the christmas roast with a knife. Clearly, reading that you know immediately that I am speaking of a dull-edged butter-knife, a small serrated steak knife, a putty-kinfe, and a large carving knife ... all quite different items in both form and function. But in 500 years it might not be so obvious from the context. I think this is problem we are facing with the masters. We dont use swords as every day implements like they did any more, today similarly familiar items are things like cars, tv sets, computers and cell phones.

I agree with John there is a yearning for some people to believe in a rapier that can cut neatly though candle sticks and hack through the rope that connects to the giant iron chandelier so it can be dropped on the bad guys while the hero is lifted up to safety on the balcony...

But the point that the problem lies in hoplology and spathology is also true. I can carve a roast with a knife, I cannot do so with a butter knife. If I'm talking about cutting a roast with a 'knife', the distinction needs to be made.

The Spanish term "Espada ropera" and the Italian "Spada Da Lato" are valid historical terms, and we know the cutting swords ala Marrozo existed side by side with the thrusting only rapiers, and there were fairly fine gradiations between sometimes which blurred the lines somewhat. Generally speaking though, the purpose was different, the former more versatile weapons capable of being used for self defense against opponents armed in a variety of manners, or even for warfare, while the latter were more for private duels.

Jeanry

[Tom Leoni]

Casper,

I disagree about most of what you are saying, although you are surely entitled to your opinion.

1) Fabris, Alfieri, Capoferro and those whom we identify as "rapier" masters are not the only ones who use the head and limbs almost exclusively for targets of cuts. Manciolino, Marozzo and Dall'Agocchie (whom we call "cut and thrust masters") also have the same exact target preferences for the cut. So, if your thesis were true, it would mean that their swords too (in the early 1500's) a) were rapiers or b) could only produce "harrassing" effects. If this is what you are saying, I strongly disagree with you.

2) Who said that only a "slender" rapier is a "true rapier"? Or that a rapier has to have a certain taper? I assure you that if you put together 100 experts, show them my originals and ask them whether or not they were rapiers, virtually all of them would say yes. If you have a more authoritative definition of a rapier as "a weapon whose blade cannot exceed 1/2 inch in width," please share it with me. I am not saying this (or anything else) sarcastically. It seems to me that your definition of a rapier is very restrictive and somewhat arbitrary, not that mine is too broad.

3) The concept of "harrassing cuts" is ENTIRELY missing from the many Italian rapier texts I have analyzed - Fabris, Giganti, Capoferro, Alfieri, Marcelli, and others. The old adage "absence of evidence...." is a canard. If we claim so frequently that this technique existed in a certain system such as Italian rapier, we must give evidence - our "common sense" just doesn't cut it - no pun intended. If you have any direct evidence of it, it would be a breakthrough in my studies, so I would gladly hear it from you or anyone else familiar with these Italian texts and update my understanding of the system.

4) It is not entirely correct that Italian "rapier" masters did not use full blows. Fabris says that with most cuts, if you don't meet your target you will end up swinging the sword to the point that its tip ends up behind your back. Also, he identifies four ways to deliver the cut and, yes, one of them is a full cut from the shoulder. Sure, he discourages such technique for tactical reasons - but the very fact that he spends considerable time on it (devoting it even an illustration) means that such action was employed.

5) I don't have ANY emotional attachment to "defend the indefensible." It seems to me that this is a much hotter button for some of you than for me.

6) If handled incorrectly, any blade will break, especially at the tip. Actually, many cutting swords of the time have a sectional taper that end at a paper-thin point, no doubt to maximize the potential for cutting. I own a Schiavona that is exactly like that: at 1" from the tip, its section measures less than 1/10 of an inch. Also, read what Viggiani says when he writes about parrying: if I parry your fendente with an ascending diagonal cut and I meet your edge forte-on-debole, your blade will likely break. He was writing approximately in 1550: he either refers to the rapier (in which case he makes ample use of full cuts) or of the cut and thrust sword (admitting that it could break) - but we can't have it both ways.

7) As Mr. Oakeshott said: if a sword can't take off a limb it's a rapier (or a smallsword, or a variety of other weapons). Now, there are different shades of gray. A cut can still be momentous and debilitating without taking off a limb. So, if we go strictly by his definition, such cut could still be produced by a rapier.

There were rapiers that were not at all designed to cut, others that still retained a good edge, some breadth to the blade and could therefore deliver cuts - while still being rapiers. I don't see why we have to be so categorically against the second option.

9) Rapier Master Alfieri (1640) is extremely explicit about the effects of a cut: it will "stop at the bone." To me, this also means that it will "make it to the bone."

Again, I am not trying to be sarcastic or dismissive. Only, if someone tells me that a 40" bladed sword with a seven-ring hilt, weighing 2.5lbs and balancing 2" from the shell-guard is NOT a rapier only because it measures 1/4" more than they think a rapier should measure at the ricasso - and if they tell me that I am "defending the indefensible" because I believe it is, I am entitled to be puzzled and to question their definition's source in return. My quotes are genuine, and you can check them for yourself.

Tom Leoni